Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Stephen King Adaptations


Luckylyn

Recommended Posts

Doctor Sleep is a much better book than it had any right to be, but the book's single scariest scene (books really don't scare me often, and this was legit terrifying) is about 

  Reveal spoiler

and while I don't know if seeing it onscreen would be on poor taste or not (I lean toward yes), I would be VERY uncomfortable seeing it dramatized.

Edited by starri
  • Love 1
  On 9/28/2015 at 6:18 PM, paramitch said:

I agree with you on Dolores Claiborne, which is a movie whose atmosphere kind of wraps around itself like a fog. The actors are all just superb and it stays with you.

Expand  

For me, Dolores Claiborne is one of the best adaptations of a Stephen King book.  They excise some of the sillier aspects of the book, and while all the actors give sensational performances, the scenes between Judy Parfitt and Kathy Bates are a freaking masterclass.  You know these women, you know their lives and you see how they ended up where they are.  I can watch this movie anytime it is on.    

 

  • Love 2
  On 2/19/2021 at 9:00 PM, BetterButter said:
Expand  

I’m a big Edgar Wright fan.  I haven’t read The Running Man and only vaguely remember the Arnold Schwarzenegger adaptation.  So I don’t have any particular preconceived notions.

I watched the new Firestarter on Peacock. It SUCKED.

  Reveal spoiler

schitts creek comedy GIF by CBC

  • Useful 2
  • Love 1
  On 5/15/2022 at 1:09 AM, AimingforYoko said:

It was trash. It was like the budget ran out halfway through the shoot schedule. I mean, the '84 version with Drew and a phoning-it-in George C. Scott as Rainbird was no masterpiece, but compared to this dreck it was Godfather I & II combined.

Expand  

I just rewatched the original, and yeah it was cheesy AF but Drew elevated it. Her Charlie was a child that was put through the wringer, yet her kind heart, her love for her father, and the fact that she never wanted to hurt anyone until she was absolutely pushed to the brink is what got audiences to root for her. And the remake screwed up all three of these thinks. Original Charlie saved horses while torching the Shop, but Remake Charlie couldn’t stop herself from burning a stray cat just because it scratched her?! BULLSHIT.

Oh and 

  Reveal spoiler

 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
(edited)
  On 5/17/2022 at 3:34 PM, MaggieG said:

I lost interest in Firestarter after the mom died and they didn't seem to care. I stuck around to watch Zac though 😍

Expand  

True, Zac was a very hot dad. I just wish their relationship was as close as it was supposed to be.

Did anyone else think Keith David (from the original) looked like a grown-up version of Georgie in Young Sheldon? I swear he does.

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Love 2
  On 5/15/2022 at 2:07 AM, Spartan Girl said:

Original Charlie saved horses while torching the Shop, but Remake Charlie couldn’t stop herself from burning a stray cat just because it scratched her?! BULLSHIT.

Expand  

Once I saw that scene I should have just followed my instincts and turned it off right then. She never would have done that. 

I also hated the situation with Irv and his wife. The whole thing was such a mess!

  • Love 1
  On 5/14/2022 at 8:53 PM, Spartan Girl said:

A creepier Charlie does not work. It never was who she was. Oh, and she apparently is telekinetic and telepathic instead of just a firestarter. Not to mention the movie completely fails to replicate her close relationship with her father, which was only THE HEART OF THE WHOLE STORY. 

Expand  

I'm listening to the audiobook of Stephen King's version because it's been so long since I read the book and I was curious. In the book she does have a touch of the other two abilities, but nowhere near a significant power. Although he does explain that the fire and telekinesis are sort of related. Which, if you think of the original movie, makes sense as Charlie steals the coins from the pay phones. The fire wouldn't have made the machines give those up. This was also how she knows the shop was coming to the farm.  The book also hints at Charlie liking the power but being terrified of it as well, but not in the way updated Firestarter showed. The funny part is that now that I'm revisiting the book, it is impossible for me to imagine Charlie as anyone but Drew and her dad as anyone but David Keith.  

  • Love 2
  On 5/14/2022 at 8:53 PM, Spartan Girl said:

 

  Reveal spoiler

Sorry, I know this is an older post… but just came across it. 

The thing I like about Stephen King’s stories is he developed his characters well. The screen adaptions always seem to miss that, going for special effects or cheap scares instead. 

 

Expand  

 

  On 3/13/2024 at 2:27 AM, BetterButter said:
Expand  

Ooh, thanks for this. Any more news on the release date? Can’t wait to have a look. I loved the book and both adaptions, especially the 1979 series, which is rated far too low, IMO. The special effects were good for the day, and it’s one adaption of a Stephen King novel where they developed the characters (to some extent, at least) which Stephen King has always been good at.

 

  On 6/26/2024 at 4:54 AM, ferjy said:

Ooh, thanks for this. Any more news on the release date? Can’t wait to have a look. I loved the book and both adaptions, especially the 1979 series, which is rated far too low, IMO. The special effects were good for the day, and it’s one adaption of a Stephen King novel where they developed the characters (to some extent, at least) which Stephen King has always been good at.

 

Expand  

As per Wikipedia, Salem's Lot has an unspecified release date on Max and will get a limited theater release in the UK and Ireland on October 11th. Sounds like there's been lots of issues behind the scenes, since it was initially due to be released in September of 2022,  but it was delayed and then lost its release date to Evil Dead Rise. King himself questioned why WB was holding it back, so I guess he's not always involved in the film adaptations.

  On 9/12/2024 at 6:25 PM, BetterButter said:

 

Expand  

Atrocious.  Abysmal. 

What should have been a 10-part HBO series reduced to a TikTok.

Some thoughts:

(potential spoilers)
 

  Reveal spoiler

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

Edited by millennium
  • Like 4
  • Useful 1
  Quote

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

Expand  
  Reveal spoiler

Alfre Woodward deserved so much better.

I decided to watch the 2004 mini series tonight and that sure wasn't much better.

My advise is to stick with the original mini series. While not perfect, it's much better than the other adaptations.

So disappointed.

 

  • Like 3
  On 10/4/2024 at 8:42 AM, millennium said:

Atrocious.  Abysmal. 

What should have been a 10-part HBO series reduced to a TikTok.

Some thoughts:

(potential spoilers)
 

  Reveal spoiler

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

Expand  

I was disappointed, too. I would have liked to see it as a series. 

  • Like 2
  Quote

I read today that a couple months ago Stephen King tweeted he had seen the movie and "liked it."

Expand  

I'd be curious to know what he liked about it! All these filmmakers did was use the title of the book and the character names to make a generic vampire movie. 

  Quote

Apparently it was originally meant for a screen release but was put on the shelf during Covid (it was supposed to come out in 2022). 

Expand  

I did read that. Honestly I'm glad it wasn't in theaters.

  Quote

Sounds like Twilight, which, ugh.

Expand  

It's not that bad!! At least the vampires don't sparkle!

It's just generic. It barely has anything to do with the book on which it's supposed to be based. There is no character development at all. The editing is insane - like there are no transitions or anything between scenes. A couple of times I felt like I might have hit the ff button by mistake because the cut from one scene to the next was so abrupt.

Though I was thrilled to see a Nosferatu type vampire rather than the Dracula in a cape type.

  • Like 2

So .. Salem's Lot.  Oh dear.  

The first half is so, so promising.  The build up and the use of the song "Sundown" and all the lovely cinematography and the little town they used for the downtown atmosphere.  Perfect.  And the suspension building ...  Especially that scene where the boys are walking in the woods and everything is in silhouette.  All the scenes with undead Mike, especially the quiet creepiness of the bar scene -- fantastic.

And yet.  Somewhere around the halfway mark something happens with the script and everything just gets very dumbed down and wooden and clunky and all the depth falls away from the characters and everybody starts going through the motions.          

It seems like they wanted to do something with the idea of a "dying" town being vulnerable to evil, nobody truly good (as the sheriff claims), the town simply trying to ignore the Glick family tragedy and hating outsiders, and the sad, drinking priest ... etc.  But it's not explored at all.  Everybody quite literally disappears instead.  

  • Like 2
  On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, SlovakPrincess said:

So .. Salem's Lot.  Oh dear.  

The first half is so, so promising.  The build up and the use of the song "Sundown" and all the lovely cinematography and the little town they used for the downtown atmosphere.  Perfect.  And the suspension building ...  Especially that scene where the boys are walking in the woods and everything is in silhouette.  All the scenes with undead Mike, especially the quiet creepiness of the bar scene -- fantastic.

 

Expand  

That scene in the woods, was the best scene. 

  • Like 1

Oof, I was so psyched for this, but yeah, it was bad. And not even in a fun, schlocky way -- just kind of banal and forgettable.

There were a few nice creepy moments -- the boys in the woods, the sick guy in the corner of the diner -- but not enough.

The irony is, I don't think the original actual story of 'Salem's Lot is all that good to begin with. It's a modern-day Dracula ripoff by King with several placeholder/stock characters (poor Susan, Father Callahan, etc.). But it is fun and genuinely scary.

I did think the miniseries from the 70s was really good -- I still remember how scary the vampire kid at the window was, and I absolutely loved the ending (which was different from the book's, and genuinely sad and haunting).

But yeah, this was missing all of that. And the worst part was, it did this weird thing where it was sort of "cheating" or speeding up the passage of the sun. I guess it was done for tension, but the thing is, it was unnecessary -- the tension would've been worse if the sun set more slowly.

  On 10/4/2024 at 8:42 AM, millennium said:

Atrocious.  Abysmal. 

What should have been a 10-part HBO series reduced to a TikTok.

Some thoughts:

(potential spoilers)
 

  Reveal spoiler

What really galls me is that Stephen King is credited as an Executive Producer on this movie.   Nobody can convince me he didn't see early versions of this disaster.   And yet he stood back and let it be foist upon the public.

Expand  

I agree about Mark Petrie (although I thought the actor was fantastic and perfectly cast). I also hated that we didn't meet his parents until the movie was almost over. It completely robs that final scene with Barlow killing them of the power it has in the book and earlier incarnations. We should have met Mark's parents early on and seen how close he was to them, etc. Instead, the final scene was almost comical -- "Oh, look, here are Mark's parents! Oh, dear, those were Mark's parents." Etc.

I thought Pullman was okay as Mears -- he tried, and I liked that he looked like an ordinary guy, but the movie removed all the character's backstory and left us with a blank slate. And I didn't think the Susan actress was bad, but she felt miscast to me, like she'd wandered in from a completely different movie and era. 

Also: Oh, THAT'S who Straker was!! Thank you, I could not figure out where I'd seen him before.

  On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, SlovakPrincess said:

So .. Salem's Lot.  Oh dear.  

The first half is so, so promising.  The build up and the use of the song "Sundown" and all the lovely cinematography and the little town they used for the downtown atmosphere.  Perfect.  And the suspension building ...  Especially that scene where the boys are walking in the woods and everything is in silhouette.  All the scenes with undead Mike, especially the quiet creepiness of the bar scene -- fantastic.

And yet.  Somewhere around the halfway mark something happens with the script and everything just gets very dumbed down and wooden and clunky and all the depth falls away from the characters and everybody starts going through the motions.          

It seems like they wanted to do something with the idea of a "dying" town being vulnerable to evil, nobody truly good (as the sheriff claims), the town simply trying to ignore the Glick family tragedy and hating outsiders, and the sad, drinking priest ... etc.  But it's not explored at all.  Everybody quite literally disappears instead.  

Expand  

I forgot this, but I loved the use of "Sundown" -- it was one of the only moments in the movie I really liked and that gave me a general eerie feeling. It's such a good song and was used very effectively here (and in the trailer).

And you and Millennium are right about the frantic pacing and lack of attention to the townspeople. The whole tragedy of Salem's Lot is that we care about the townspeople and it's horrible to watch them fall one by one... and in a bigger sense, to see the town die.

I guess on the up side, the perfect adaptation of this book is still out there.

I admit I haven't read a lot of Stephen King, but I'm curious why filmmakers are just remaking the same five or six SK books instead of trying to adapt any of his other stories?

I admit I also kind of miss the era of the Big 3 networks because ABC adapted many of his stories... my fav was The Tommy Knockers and the original IT.

  • Like 1
  On 10/26/2024 at 7:42 PM, JAYJAY1979 said:

I admit I haven't read a lot of Stephen King, but I'm curious why filmmakers are just remaking the same five or six SK books instead of trying to adapt any of his other stories?

I admit I also kind of miss the era of the Big 3 networks because ABC adapted many of his stories... my fav was The Tommy Knockers and the original IT.

Expand  

I used to watch the original IT, every time the kids trick-or-treated here (like tonight - they always do it the Saturday before Halloween, here). 

Hulu had some of the ABC versions, this summer, but I don't know if they're still on there. I've hardly watched anything this month. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...